Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The effects of contingent feedback on perceived control and performance

  • Published:
European Journal of Psychology of Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine the impact on students’ performance of three contingent feedback strategies used by teachers. Contigency means that the feedback strongly corresponds with task behaviour that can be controlled by the students. Elementary school students (N=296) received individualized feedback about their performance during a series of five lessons. Within this contingent feedback structure, three strategies were applied which were assumed to enhance the perceived controllability of the task situation: (1) enhancing the perceptibility of the contingency between feedback and task behavior; (2) explicit reference to effort as part of the feedback, and (3) setting of goals. As predicted, the three contingent feedback strategies had a significant positive effect on perceived controllability, and led to better task performance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alloy, L., & Tabachnik, N. (1984). Assessment of covariation by humans and animals: The joint influence of prior expectations and current situationa information.Psychological Review, 91, 112–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A., & Wood, R. (1989). Effect of perceived controllability and performance standards on self-regulation of complex decision making.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 805–814.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker, L. J. (1978). Joint effect of feedback and goal setting on performance: A field study of residential energy conservation.Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 428–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crocker, J. (1981). Judgment of covariation by social perceivers.Psychological Bulletin, 90, 272–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forsyth, D. R., & McMillan, J. H. (1981). Attributions, affect, and expectations: a test of Weiner’s three-dimensional model.Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 393–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garland, H. (1983). Influence of ability, assigned goals and normative information on personal goals and performance: A challenge to the goal attainability assumption.Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 20–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hewstone, M., & Jaspers, J. (1983). A re-examination of the roles of consensus, consistency and distinctiveness: Kelley’s cube revisited.British Journal of Social Psychology, 22, 41–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hewstone, M., & Jaspers, J. (1987). Covariation and causal attribution: A logical model of the intuitive analysis of variance.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 663–672.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, S. E., & Zedeck, S. (1982). Explaining performance variability: Contributions of goal setting, task characteristics, and evaluative contexts.Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 759–768.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, H. H. (1973). The processes of causal attribution.American Psychologist, February, 107–128.

  • Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990).A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mento, A., Steel, R., & Karren, R. (1987). A meta-analytic study of the effects of goal setting on task performance: 1966–1984.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 39, 52–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nisbett, R. E., & Ross, L. (1980).Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siero, F. W., Oudenhoven, J. P. Van, & Veen, P. (1983). Causale attributies na oordelen over prestaties: een veldexperiment in het onderwijs [Causal attributions after performance judgments: An experiment in an educational setting].Gedrag — tÿdschrift voor psychologie, 11 190–204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Oudenhoven, J. P., Siero, F. W., Veen, P., & Withag, J. (1983).Effects of individualised feedback and instruction on effort attributions, ability attributions and spelling achievement.Educational Studies, 9, 105–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiner, B. (1982). An attributional based theory of motivation and emotion: Focus, range, and issues. In N. T. Feather (Ed.),Expectations and Actions: Expectancy-Value Models in Psychology (pp. 163–203). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 163–203.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation.Psychological Review, 92, 548–573.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zuckerman, M. (1979). Attributions of success and failure revisited, or: The motivational bias is alive and well in attribution theory.Journal of Personality, 47, 245–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Social and Organizational Psychology, University of Croningen, Grote Kruisstraat 2/1, 9712 TS, Groningen, The Netherlands

    Frans Siero & Jan Pieter van Oudenhoven

Authors
  1. Frans Siero
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jan Pieter van Oudenhoven
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Siero, F., van Oudenhoven, J.P. The effects of contingent feedback on perceived control and performance. Eur J Psychol Educ 10, 13 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03172792

Download citation

  • Received:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03172792

Key words

Search

Navigation